Now I have all I need. Let me write the full article directly.
M/s Knit Pro International v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Copyright Infringement as a Cognizable Offence: The Supreme Court Settles the Law
Introduction
The protection of intellectual property rights, particularly copyright, has always been a matter of significant legal importance in a knowledge-driven economy. One of the critical questions that repeatedly arises in the enforcement of copyright law in India is whether a violation of copyright is treated as a serious criminal offence — one that allows the police to act swiftly without prior approval of a court — or a lesser one where immediate police action is not permitted. This distinction in criminal law is captured in the terms "cognizable" and "non-cognizable" offence. A cognizable offence is one where the police can arrest a person, investigate, and take action without first obtaining a warrant or permission from a magistrate. A non-cognizable offence, on the other hand, requires prior court permission before any police action can be taken. The Supreme Court of India, in the case of M/s Knit Pro International v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., decided on May 20, 2022, conclusively settled this question by holding that the offence of copyright infringement under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 is indeed a cognizable and non-bailable offence.
Factual and Procedural Background
M/s Knit Pro International, the appellant, is a company that holds copyright in certain works. Alleging that the respondent No. 2 had knowingly infringed upon its copyright, the appellant approached the legal system seeking criminal action against the alleged infringer. Rather than going directly to the police, the appellant filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), seeking directions to register a First Information Report (FIR) against the respondent for offences under Sections 51, 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957, read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
On October 23, 2018, the learned CMM allowed this application and directed the concerned Station House Officer (SHO) to register the FIR under the appropriate provisions of law. Accordingly, FIR No. 431 of 2018 was registered at Police Station Bawana. Following the registration of the FIR, the accused — respondent No. 2 — approached the High Court of Delhi by filing a writ petition, being Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 3422 of 2018, praying for the quashing of the criminal proceedings on various grounds. However, at the time of hearing before the High Court, the accused pressed only one ground: that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a non-cognizable offence, meaning the CMM had no jurisdiction to direct the registration of the FIR in the manner it did.
The High Court of Delhi, by its judgment and order dated November 25, 2019, accepted this sole argument and allowed the writ petition. It quashed the FIR as well as the order passed by the CMM, holding that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a non-cognizable offence. Aggrieved by this decision, M/s Knit Pro International — the original complainant — filed the present criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of India, being Criminal Appeal No. 807 of 2022.
The Dispute
The entire dispute in this case revolved around one narrow but critically important legal question: whether the offence punishable under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 is a cognizable offence or a non-cognizable offence.
The answer to this question has enormous practical consequences. If the offence is cognizable, the police can directly register an FIR, investigate the matter, and arrest the accused without needing the prior permission of a court. If it is non-cognizable, the police cannot act on their own and would require prior permission from a magistrate before any investigation can begin, making enforcement significantly more cumbersome. For rights holders like the appellant, the classification directly affects how effectively they can seek the law's protection against infringement of their creative and intellectual work.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
Justice M. R. Shah, writing the judgment on behalf of the bench also comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna, engaged in a careful and precise analysis of the relevant statutory provisions to arrive at the conclusion.
The Court began by identifying the two key provisions that needed to be read together: Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Part II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C.
Section 63 of the Copyright Act deals with the offence of infringement of copyright or other rights conferred by the Act. It states that any person who knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of the copyright in a work, or any other right conferred by the Act (with a specific exception related to Section 53A), shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years, and with a fine of not less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees. There is a proviso to the section which allows the court, in cases where the infringement was not made for gain in the course of trade or business, to impose a sentence of less than six months or a fine of less than fifty thousand rupees, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment.
Part II of the First Schedule to the Cr.P.C. lays down the classification of offences under laws other than the Indian Penal Code. This classification is based on the quantum of punishment prescribed for the offence. The scheme under Part II is as follows: if an offence is punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for more than seven years, it is cognizable and non-bailable, triable by a Court of Session; if an offence is punishable with imprisonment for three years and upwards but not more than seven years, it is again cognizable and non-bailable, triable by a Magistrate of the First Class; and if an offence is punishable with imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only, it is non-cognizable and bailable.
The Court's analysis was straightforward once these provisions were placed side by side. The maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is three years of imprisonment. Since the maximum extends to three years, the offence squarely falls within the second category under Part II of the First Schedule — that is, "punishable with imprisonment for three years and upwards but not more than seven years." This makes the offence cognizable and non-bailable. The third category — which would make it non-cognizable — applies only when the maximum punishment is less than three years. Since the maximum under Section 63 is exactly three years and not less than three years, the offence does not fall within the non-cognizable category.
The Court acknowledged that the respondent had relied upon the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67, in support of the non-cognizable reading. In that case, the Supreme Court had interpreted the expression "not less than 10 years" in the context of Section 167(2)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C., which pertains to the maximum period of detention during investigation. The respondent argued that by analogy, the phrase "may extend to three years" in Section 63 should be read in a manner that keeps it outside the cognizable category. The Supreme Court in the present case firmly rejected this analogy. It held that the Rakesh Kumar Paul judgment was dealing with a different provision and a different context — specifically, the computation of the maximum period of detention — and was therefore not applicable to the question of classification of offences under Part II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C.
The Court also referred to Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar, AIR 2001 SC 830, a judgment that had specifically held that the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for an offence cannot be excluded for the purpose of classifying whether the offence is cognizable or non-cognizable. This decision directly supported the appellant's position and reinforced the Court's conclusion.
The Court emphasised that the language of Part II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C. is clear and leaves no room for ambiguity. When the law says that an offence punishable with imprisonment for three years and upwards is cognizable, and Section 63 prescribes imprisonment that "may extend to three years," the maximum sentence of three years brings the offence squarely within the cognizable category. The Court found the High Court's contrary reasoning to be legally erroneous.
Final Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by M/s Knit Pro International. It quashed and set aside the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated November 25, 2019, which had quashed the FIR and the CMM's order. The Supreme Court held clearly and unequivocally that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 is a cognizable and non-bailable offence. Consequently, the criminal proceedings against respondent No. 2 for offences under Sections 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act were ordered to proceed further in accordance with law and on their own merits, treating the same as a cognizable and non-bailable offence. No order as to costs was passed by the Supreme Court.
Point of Law Settled in the Case
The Supreme Court settled a significant point of criminal and intellectual property law in this case. It authoritatively held that an offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 — which carries a maximum punishment of three years of imprisonment — falls within the classification of "punishable with imprisonment for three years and upwards but not more than seven years" under Part II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, such an offence is a cognizable and non-bailable offence. The police can therefore register an FIR and investigate copyright infringement cases without prior court permission, significantly strengthening the hands of copyright holders in seeking criminal enforcement of their rights. The Court further clarified that the decision in Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam (supra) has no application to the question of classification of offences under Part II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C.
Case Details
Title: Knit Pro International Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Date of Order: May 20, 2022
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 807 of 2022
Neutral Citation: Not separately assigned in the judgment text; the case is reportable and decided by the Supreme Court of India.
Name of Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Name of Hon'ble Judges: Justice M. R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Suggested SEO Titles for Legal Journal Publication
- Copyright Infringement as Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Settles Law in Knit Pro International Case
- Section 63 Copyright Act Is Cognizable and Non-Bailable: Supreme Court of India 2022
- Can Police Arrest for Copyright Infringement Without Court Permission? Supreme Court Answers
- Knit Pro International v. State of NCT Delhi: A Landmark on Criminal Enforcement of Copyright in India
- Supreme Court India 2022: Copyright Violation Under Section 63 Is a Cognizable Offence Explained
- FIR for Copyright Infringement: How Supreme Court Strengthened IP Enforcement in India
- Classification of Copyright Offence Under Cr.P.C.: Decoding the Supreme Court Ruling in Knit Pro Case
Google SEO Tags
Copyright Act 1957, Section 63 Copyright Act, Cognizable Offence Copyright India, Non-Bailable Offence Copyright, Supreme Court India 2022, Knit Pro International vs State of NCT Delhi, Criminal Appeal 807 of 2022, Copyright Infringement FIR India, Part II First Schedule CrPC, Copyright Criminal Enforcement India, Rakesh Kumar Paul vs State of Assam, Intelligence Officer NCB vs Sambhu Sonkar, IP Law India, Intellectual Property Crime India, Copyright Infringement Arrest India, CrPC Classification Offences, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate FIR, Section 156(3) CrPC Copyright, Copyright Cognizable Non-Bailable India, Justice MR Shah Supreme Court, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
Headnote
M/s Knit Pro International v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 807 of 2022 — Supreme Court of India — Decided: May 20, 2022 Bench: Justice M. R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna
Held: The offence of copyright infringement under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which prescribes imprisonment for a term not less than six months but extending up to three years along with a fine, is a cognizable and non-bailable offence. Under Part II of the First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an offence punishable with imprisonment for three years and upwards but not more than seven years is classified as cognizable. Since the maximum punishment under Section 63 extends to three years, it falls squarely within this category and not within the non-cognizable category which is confined to offences punishable with imprisonment for less than three years. The decision in Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67, which interpreted the expression "not less than 10 years" in the context of Section 167(2)(a)(i) Cr.P.C., has no application to the classification of offences under Part II of the First Schedule. The High Court gravely erred in quashing the FIR and criminal proceedings on the ground that the offence was non-cognizable. The impugned order was set aside and the criminal proceedings were directed to continue treating the offence as cognizable and non-bailable.
